Unemployment Hits New High In Silicon Valley

Though there may be some degree of cushion for IT workers in the US generally, Slatterz writes "The steadily climbing unemployment rate in Silicon Valley has reached a shocking four-year high of 6.6 per cent. Recent statistics indicate that the percentage of unemployed workers in the sunny state of California has increased to 7.7 in August — up from 7.4 per cent in July. Jeffrey Lindsay of Bernstein Research explained that a number of Internet firms were chronically overstaffed."

Comments

Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[Chrisq]

How many people have become unemployed and then taken a job at 2/3 of the salary? How many people would like to be employed but not registered as unemployed (e.g. wife/husband still has job)?

How many people put up with crap they'd normally resign over, because of the state of the jobs market. In my experience when unemployment is over 4 or 5% this affects 10 to 15% of the employed too.

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people have become unemployed and then taken a job at 2/3 of the salary? How many people are no longer being overpaid for their jobs?

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[Shivetya]

Let us ask other questions.

How many are too afraid to take on a new job because they feel they might not measure up?

How many are too lazy to learn new skills because it might be hard, get in the way of WOW, or posting on boards?

How many people would not take a lower paying job because it bruises their ego?

Really, if you don't have a job ANY job is better. I worked at a grocery store for a stint while going to classes at night... at one time I held down two jobs costing me 12 to 14 hours of my day to stay ahead. Guess what, those working only 40 hours a day won't get anywhere. I could school work in those over 40 hours.

There are a lot of jobs out there. If you go through life in your 9 to 5 relying on things never changing you will get stung. When the job you had is lost it can be blamed on the economy many times, however not being able to get a new one rest on yourself more than not.

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[R2.0]

"How many people would like to be employed but not registered as unemployed (e.g. wife/husband still has job)?"

Actually, unemployment statistics are derived from surveys, NOT from claims at the unemployment office. Those numbers are reporte4d as "new jobless claims" or somesuch. The survey method is more accurate in one sense - there are people who meet the definition of "unemployed" that do not get unemployment benefits (fired for cause, etc.)

One of the criticisms, however, is that you only count as unemployed if you report that you are still actively looking for a job. Critics contend that this under-represents unemployment figures, since at a certain point people "give up" searching for a job or go to work at McDonalds or something. OTOH, there ARE people who drop in and out of the employment market, women of childbearing age especially. Is it really a fair picture of the job market to count as unemployed a woman who decides to take a year off to have a baby?

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[COMON$]

I beg to differ sir. If you think that you have to work more than 40 hours a day to get anywhere you are dead wrong. It isnt the hours in a day, it is the quality of the hours. I pride myself in the fact that I have gotten good enough at my job to where I can get quality work done in half the time of IT workers in the same field. I am not in the practice of putting in hours just to put in hours. I actually HAVE a life outside work, so if I want to work a 6 hour day, I go home. This is IT, I will pull a 10 hour day here and there and the administration knows it. I am compensated well, get fantastic reviews, and did I mention that I have improved my salary by 26% in the last 18 months not counting bonuses? Oh and I am working on cooler technology, at a much higher level, and work about 15% less than other jobs.

Getting ahead has nothing to do with pulling consistent 10 hour days. It has to do with putting out quality work.

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

"Guess what, those working only 40 hours a day won't get anywhere."

Apart from the obvious mistake, this depends quite a lot on where you are going.

If you want to pursue a career, no matter what, working as much as you can until you either burn out or get succesfull your strategy might work.

If you want to pursue a balanced life, with time for a family, hobbies, and a general relaxed attitude, taking it easy might be the way.

It helps if you don't care about your neighbours bank balance or the size of his SUV and house, though.

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[lysergic.acid]

how many people still hold management positions?

i know a lot of people think of the poor and unemployed as lazy freeloaders whereas the rich and "industrious" are the true producers of our society. however, in my experience most poor people are very hardworking whereas many of the richest and most highly-paid individuals are simply overprivileged social parasites.

of course, i'm not talking about skilled professionals like doctors, scientists, etc. but rather people who contribute nothing to society and are just good at making money or climbing the corporate ladder. these are usually MBAs and upper-management types whose main job is to push the real producers in a company to gain the maximum return for minimal compensation.

best case scenario is that they don't mismanage the company too badly and just allow the workforce to do their jobs unimpeded. if they can manage that then they're given credit for the work done by the people they manage. if they fuck up then they just blame their subordinates and lay off a bunch of workers so that they can continue to get paid for doing nothing.

i would say sales and marketing/advertising are similarly overvalued. but at least they're a necessary evil in a capitalist society. a sales team can make or break a company regardless of the product/service they're selling. but they are still given preferential status over workers that actually produce the company's core product. if a company starts losing money due to a lack of sales, then the engineering department is still the first to go while the sales team continue to receive posh salaries.

Re:Unemployment is only the thin end of the wedge

[infinite9]

Guess what, those working only 40 hours a week won't get anywhere.... in their current job.

If you tolerate being treated like crap, you'll be treated like crap. Public corporations by definition have a fiduciary responsibility to squeeze as much productivity from their employees as possible at the expense of everything else including morals and ethics.

Recession vs depression

[mcgrew]

Will Rogers famously said some time in the 1930s during the Great Depression, "A recession is when you neighbor's out of work. A depression is when you're out of work!"

To all of you in Silicon Valley: I hope it's just a recession.

Re:Recession vs depression

[Notquitecajun]

Better yet, it's similar to what we saw in 2000 - it's a correction. When a certain section of the economy is artifically inflated - such as real estate, particularly in CA and FL - it has to come back down to an honest market. Everything will shake out as it ALWAYS has - even right after the Great Depression, which gets more and more overrated as the years go by (though our industrialization and new training occurred due to a war there that helped lead to recovery, particularly afterward). Some people will lose out, some people will win out, but also compare this - we're dealing with LESS than double-digit unemployment.

Remember, the media ALWAYS over-hypes how good and how bad things really are.

Re:Recession vs depression

[antifoidulus]

And yet for the most part, the market was allowed to correct in 2000/2001. For starters, esp. after Bush came in office, he didn't have very many friends in Silicon Valley, so he couldn't give 2 shits if businesses there failed. Although /. readers probably suffered disproportionately compared to the general population in that downturn, it was natural and necessary. However, this time allowing those morons who made bad investments(at the corps and at the individual level) to suffer is really what this country needs, and yet because its an election and because large amounts of morons failed and because the CEOs in this case are much more buddy-buddy with the politicians, they will not allow what needs to happen to happen.

The repubs want to pay the same morons who got themselves into this mess $17k/hr of government money, because heaven forbid someone who is rich actually have to take responsibility for anything bad.

If the government is honestly concerned about the credit markets seizing up, then just go offer the money directly. Increase student loan limits(and decrease rates), set up more small business loans, esp. businesses who will invest in R&D in things like alternative energy. Let morons suffer for being morons. Rewarding greedy morons defies EVERYTHING the United States once stood for.

Re:Recession vs depression

[mi]

The repubs want to pay the same morons who got themselves into this mess $17k/hr of government money, because heaven forbid someone who is rich actually have to take responsibility for anything bad.

I don't know, who the "repubs" want to pay, but the Democrats' intentions are certainly "less than honorable". Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama are the two-highest beneficiaries of the Fannie and Freddie lobbying efforts — despite the vast accounting irregularities of both monsters.

If you are looking for "morons", they aren't on Wall Street. Some of those people may be arrogant assholes, but "morons" they aren't. The morons are people, who bought houses they had no way of affording without reading the fine print. It is impossible for any democrat (and I don't mean the political party here, but anybody associating with the Demos rather than Optimates) to blame the "ordinary people", so they blame the bankers and mortgage brokers to help unqualified people get mortgages. That the "victims" who got the mortgages are morons is not explicitly stated...

The vicious irony of it all is that Fannie and Freddi were both created for the same purpose — to give mortgages to people, who were otherwise unqualified to receive them. But that was a Democratic effort (New Deal — woo-hoo!), and we can't blame them in the newspapers, can we?

Re:One question

[jacquesm]

good point, quality is pretty high there.

I don't know why I rated an 'offtopic', I'm deadly serious. The weather is better, cost of life is much lower and there is plenty of opportunity to be employed in the IT field, especially as go-between.

Re:One question

[oldspewey]

The weather is better

That one is arguable, depending on personal preference and depending which Indian city we are talking about ... four straight months of 38C with 90% humidity isn't everybody's idea of fun.

And there are other lifestyle challenges in India that are not to be entered into lightly by the average westerner.

Interesting.

[rindeee]

This is an interesting problem that I've seen repeated almost every place I've been (caveat: I'm a contractor). Businesses often take the approach that if IT's broken, it must be due to a lack of staffing either in skills or numbers. In reality, often IT is broken due to a lack of decision making prowess in upper management. IT is treated as a toy box and milestones and scope are like melting jell-o in terms of their definition and stability. Not getting the result you personally want out of IT? No problem, hire the next guy through the door that talks a good talk. In the end, IT is the one area that suffers the greatest harm due to 'too many cooks in the kitchen' and as such, 'this'. I hate to say it, but IT needs to bleed a little bit if order is to return.

Re:Interesting.

[sheldon]

I would tend to agree, that the main problem that IT suffers from is management.

I don't know how it is at other companies, but the last few places I have worked IT managers generally have been technology guys who didn't understand technology and decided to get into management. Few of them were at all interested in actual management. They weren't attending MBA classes, they weren't reading books on management. They just saw a big paycheck and that's it.

More often then not these managers have not only been bad at making technology decisions, but worse they don't know how to manage people.

The end result has been IT staff who have no priorities, no guidance, and no ability to make a final decision. So projects wonder along endlessly. Not to mention destroyed morale.

Re:Australia sucks too

[MadShark]

Your average C++ programmer from the non-embedded world will likely be missing a set of skills that are necessary for a lot of embedded work. For example, do they know how to use a oscilloscope? A logic analyzer? A voltmeter? Arbitrary waveform generator? Emulators? Protocol analyzer? Are they used to working on devices that might only have a few K of RAM or even ROM? They could be a good fit if you need someone working on application level stuff, rather than bringing up the low level hardware. It all depends on exactly what the work involves and if the company is willing to allow someone to learn as they go, or if they need someone to hit the ground running.

Re:Australia sucks too

[TheLink]

No surprise a lot end up hiring:
a) liars
b) people who can barely read.
c) people who don't care

They're selecting against people who can read, actually care and prefer not to work in a company where the incompetence is clearly showing.

Capitalism is dying, netcraft confirms, news at 11

[Project2501a]

Let us ask other questions.

yes, lets

How many are too afraid to take on a new job because they feel they might not measure up?

How many do not have the financial means to get training to get that jobs? have you seen those cisco training courses? bat crazy money

I would like to ask you what makes you think that *everybody* can work like that? or should work like that? what kind of attitude is that towards the 40-hour week? there was blood on the streets to win those 40 hours and now you're implying that we should go back to working day and night? I thought i worked to make a living, and not the other way around.

How many are too lazy to learn new skills because it might be hard, get in the way of WOW, or posting on boards?

How many are not willing to put in to learn new skills because they'd rather put their time towards raising their children or going out on a date or staying home with their girlfriend and oiling her hair/giving her a backrub?

maybe not everybody is lazy

Guess what, those working only 40 hours a day won't get anywhere.

not everybody has the same physical/psychological strength to work those hours. and by work i mean both make a living and learn something new. if you can do it, more kudos to you. why are you berating those who cannot? or will not? why are you creating a hypothetical social/work scale where everybody has to measure the size of their dick compared to yours?

furthermore, where are we supposed to go? wtf? is there a "destination" planned? cuz i didn't get the memo.

There are a lot of jobs out there. If you go through life in your 9 to 5 relying on things never changing you will get stung. When the job you had is lost it can be blamed on the economy many times, however not being able to get a new one rest on yourself more than not.

the idea of changing 4801840938 jobs in a lifetime may not be comforting to everybody for reasons of personal priorities and/or preference. i hate looking for a new job. it's draining me, psychologically. Life is not a dick measuring competition, again.

It's only in Western Capitalism that the idea of financial insecurity and instability pushing people into staying with there jobs

insert marxist rant here, but still, please get off your high horse. not everybody subscribes to the protestant ethic

Bull shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been out of work since 2001. I've tried to get work doing anything: roofing, construction, writing, bagging groceries, etc...

When they ask to see my resume, they see the ten+ years of programming (All C++ and SQL) and my degrees. Noting, Not even feedback.

I HAVE been learning new technologies - on my own and classes. But EVERYONE wants you to have PAID experience in the tech.

TAKING A CLASS IN A NEW TECHNOLOGY MEANS NOTHING UNLESS YOU HAVE PAID EXPERIENCE!

I go up to RentACoder and bid on projects. I bid really low, I mean $100/day low. AND that's just coding - no research or anything. You what? I'm still underbid! RentACoder is for folks who want SLAVE wages! Folks who want WHOLE websites done for $25?!?! WTF!

I love to learn. I'm not afraid to learn. I WANT to move on to new technology because, frankly, I'm board with C++!

I'm not busted, it's the industry and its recruiting methods that's busted!

Whoever you are, you better kiss the ground and thank you're personal god that you have a job!

Re:Check out the U6

[Sponge Bath]

Wish I had mod points for this.

There is the widely reported unemployment number (5-6%) which does not include all of the unemployed. Then there is the real (but rarely unreported) unemployment number which is now in the double digits. This is from the BLS, not some made up partisan blog.

Re:Move to Chicago

[Lord Ender]

There's a good reason.

Recruiters ask for impossible qualifications, such as 10 years experience with some technology that has only been around for eight, plus five years of experience in some completely unrelated product that not many people use, anyway. The set of people who have even used both products is vanishingly small, and the people who have the required years of experience simply do not exist.

So the only people who respond to the job advert are incompetent liars. Recruiters bring the liars to you, and you realize they are fools. So the recruiters decide to UP the requirements for the position to try to filter out the fools. Of course, this just makes it WORSE as they list even more impossible qualifications.

If you want to hire competent people, don't make impossible skills and unlikely experience combinations a requirement.

Re:Move to Chicago

[IMightB]

I completely agree, most of the people that recruiters send to us are utter incompetents... I read a few more of the children before I replied to this one...

To put this in a way that slasdotters can understand. It's trying to hire an auto-mechanic, the people that the auto-recruiters are sending you barely understand how an engine works, they get the concept of: exploshuns and pistons. (Therefore they feel qualified for the job) But they don't get things like the differences between a 2-stroke, 4-stroke and/or a diesel, and they sure as hell don't have an understanding on how the electrical, fuel, cooling, etc etc... systems work together to make the car go forward.

Re:Move to Chicago

[IMightB]

I know it's bad form, but I just have to add one more sentence to this...

I completely agree, most of the people that recruiters send to us are utter incompetents... I read a few more of the children before I replied to this one...

To put this in a way that slasdotters can understand. It's trying to hire an auto-mechanic, the people that the auto-recruiters are sending you barely understand how an engine works, they get the concept of: exploshuns and pistons. (Therefore they feel qualified for the job) But they don't get things like the differences between a 2-stroke, 4-stroke and/or a diesel, and they sure as hell don't have an understanding on how the electrical, fuel, cooling, etc etc... systems work together to make the car go forward.

Nor do they understand that problems in one of the systems can/may cause a different system to show the symptoms.

Re:Capitalism is dying, netcraft confirms, news at

[fredrated]

What, because someone doesn't want to work themselves to death they must be living off your teat? What an ass.

By the way, parent didn't make a marxist rant, they said 'insert marxist rant here', perhaps you should read more slowly. Also, I don't owe you a living just because you can't read accurately.

Re:One question

[Nadaka]

Sounds just like Mississippi.

Re:Capitalism is dying, netcraft confirms, news at

[tungstencoil]

Well put!

If you choose not to subscribe to a particular work ethic (or any 'ethic', for that matter), good for you... but be prepared for the consequences.

I didn't like my job, and realized it would go nowhere, so I went back to school and got a new degree in a new field. I then shucked my high-paying job for an entry-level software engineering position... and worked my way back up.

I took the consequences. I worked the long hours with school. It was my choice.

If you choose not to do that, that's fine. If you want to spend your time rearing children (or whatever) instead of learning new skills, more power to you. Just be prepared to accept consequences.

For the overwhelming majority of people, life is about a series of compromises. What is so wrong with that?

Re:Capitalism is dying, netcraft confirms, news at

[WDot]

You may be a troll, but I'll reply anyway.

My dad was a workaholic and he went "far" in his job, moving up the ranks and earning a six figure salary. How did he achieve it? He spent his nights at home writing memos and reports. He was never more than an arm's length away from a laptop with his email client up. His cell phone was ringing constantly--dinner, nights, family time, no event was so important that he had to turn off the cell phone. He would have been a hero in your eyes.

What was the result, however? He became grossly overweight, sick often, irritable, and in the end he ran off with some tart who was apparently okay with his lifestyle (or perhaps it was his money).

I'm not writing this to complain about bad fortune or whatever (I'm doing fine currently), I'm just writing this to show why I'm going to be lazy, at least according to your definition (working 40hrs a week). Like hell I'm going to work myself to death simply to enrich my employers.

In fact, I've been researching inexpensive housing and increasing living efficiency so that I can thrive when unemployed or on a low salary. I prefer living simple and happy to living large and depressed.

Article doesn't say anything useful about Tech

[adturner]

1) All of California isn't silicon valley or even high tech. A lot of those lost jobs have been in housing and farming.
2) 1,200 of those jobs were financial sector. Sure some of those are IT, but clearly not all of them and it's unlikely they're a majority.
3) "trade, transportation, utilities" aren't areas where you see a lot of IT.

Frankly, this isn't nearly as bad as the dot com bust and there are good jobs to be had, but companies are watching head count and so people who don't interview well, only got into tech because of the $$$ not because they'd be any good at it, have little to no experience (You're just out of college? Great! What OSS project did you work on? == blank stare) or can't work well with others are going to find their options very limited.

My company has been hiring and I'm constantly amazed with the large quantity of crappy resumes and relatively few well written ones. And I'm not looking for people who double majored CS/EE at MIT, just people who are competent, bright and have a real desire to learn.

Re:Capitalism is dying, netcraft confirms, news at

[khallow]

Here's a newsflash then: you don't deserve a job. You have absolutely no right to demand a job or a particular income.

More breaking news! Now this: The employee doesn't have a right to the job. The employer doesn't have a right to the employee.